International Delphi Expert Consensus on Safe Return to Surgical and Endoscopic Practice: From the Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to formulate recommendations based on global expert consensus to guide the surgical community on the safe resumption of surgical and endoscopic activities. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused marked disruptions in the delivery of surgical care worldwide. A thoughtful, structured approach to resuming surgical services is necessary as the impact of COVID-19 becomes better controlled. The Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative sought to formulate, through rigorous scientific methodology, consensus-based recommendations in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of international experts and policymakers. METHODS: Recommendations were developed following a Delphi process. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of surgical care in the COVID-19 crisis. Forty-four experts from 15 countries across 4 continents drafted statements based on the specific questions. Anonymous Delphi voting on the statements was performed in 2 rounds, as well as in a telepresence meeting. RESULTS: One hundred statements were formulated across 10 domains. The statements addressed terminology, impact on procedural services, patient/staff safety, managing a backlog of surgeries, methods to restart and sustain surgical services, education, and research. Eighty-three of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting, and 11 during the second round. A final telepresence meeting and discussion yielded acceptance of 5 other statements. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process resulted in 99 recommendations. These consensus statements provide expert guidance, based on scientific methodology, for the safe resumption of surgical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

P034 State of Health Maintenance Among IBD Patients at a Tertiary Care Center in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) affecting 6.8 million persons globally. Treatment of IBD focuses largely on immune suppression or modulation using corticosteroids, aminosalicylates, thiopurines, or biologic agents. These agents are effective but most of them pose a risk of infections, cancers, and osteoporosis. Many of these complications can be prevented by implementing vaccination, cancer screening, and bone health programs. Despite the progress in IBD care, recent data suggest that many IBD patients do not get preventative services. Previous studies have examined rates of vaccinations and other health maintenance metrics in North America and Europe where IBD patients are mainly of European and African descent. In comparison, Middle Eastern and Asian descent persons comprise the majority of the IBD population in Abu Dhabi, the capital city of United Arab Emirates (UAE), a major country in the Gulf region of the Middle East. Little is known to date about the state of IBD preventative care in this region. We sought to assess the proportion of patients with IBD that underwent recommended vaccinations, cancer screening (surveillance colonoscopy, PAP smear, annual skin examination), and bone health evaluation at Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City (SSMC), the largest tertiary care hospital in Abu Dhabi. METHODS: This study was a retrospective case series of adult IBD patients (>18 years) seen in the outpatient setting at SSMC from 2019 to 2020. Patients were identified based on ICD-10 codes for IBD [K50.90, K50.00, K51.90, and K50.80] as well as administrative/pharmacy records of the IBD agents (e.g. infliximab). Proportions were assessed using simple summary statistics and one sample proportion 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 55 IBD patients were identified in our study with the majority being males (76.3%). The mean age was 31.6 years. Sixty-nine percent had Crohn's. Most of the patients were on infliximab (58.1%), followed by vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and adalimumab. The proportion of patients who received vaccinations was as follows; HAV (67%, 95% CI 28-100%), HBV (50%, 95% CI 28-72%), pneumococcal 23 (20%, 95% CI 9.4-31%), pneumococcal 13 (18.2%, 95% CI 8-28%) and influenza vaccine (16.4%, 95% CI 7-26%). Moreover, the study showed that the proportion of IBD patients who underwent recommended colonoscopy surveillance was 91% (95% CI 79-100%) and the proportion of women IBD patients who had recommended PAP smear was 30%, (95% CI 2-58%). Regarding bone health, the proportion who underwent DXA bone scans was 36%, (95% CI 24-49%) However, the compliance rate of the Tdap, HPV and Zoster vaccinations, and annual skin examination were poor warranting further quality improvement studies. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that the state of health maintenance among IBD patients seen at our facility before 2021 was largely dismal. Efforts are being taken to improve the proportion of patients who receive recommended vaccinations including annual influenza, pneumococcal 13 and 23, HPV, Zoster, and COVID-19 vaccines. Furthermore, there is a focus on bone health and skin cancer examinations with plans to calculate, report, and publish health maintenance data annually.

Potentially fatal mistakes. Why pediatric dosing errors happen & how to avoid them.

Calls involving critically ill or injured children are some of the most stressful situations EMS providers encounter. Their anxiety can be exponentially compounded with the sudden realization that precise mathematical equations must be rapidly performed "in the moment," making a challenging situation even worse at a time when there is no room for error. To help avoid these potentially devastating mistakes, all providers need to be aware of their vulnerability to pediatric dosing errors, and organizations need to support personnel with the training and resources necessary to mitigate these risks as much as possible.

What gastroenterologists should know about SARS-CoV 2 vaccine: World Endoscopy Organization perspective.

BACKGROUND: The novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has caused almost 2 million deaths worldwide. Both Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency have recently approved the first COVID-19 vaccines, and a few more are going to be approved soon. METHODS: Several different approaches have been used to stimulate the immune system in mounting a humoral response. As more traditional approaches are under investigation (inactivated virus vaccines, protein subunit vaccines, recombinant virus vaccines), more recent and innovative strategies have been tried (non-replicating viral vector vaccines, RNA based vaccines, DNA based vaccines). RESULTS: Since vaccinations campaigns started in December 2020 in both the US and Europe, gastroenterologists will be one of the main sources of information regarding SARS-CoV 2 vaccination for patients in their practice, including vulnerable patients such as those with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), patients with chronic liver disease, and GI cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, we must ourselves be well educated and updated in order to provide unambiguous counseling to these categories of vulnerable patients. In this commentary, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of both approved COVID-19 vaccines and the ones still under development, and explore potential risks, benefits and prioritization of vaccination.

Chemoembolization of the liver after portal vein embolization: report of three cases.

Patients with hepatic malignancies who undergo portal vein embolization (PVE) in anticipation of major hepatectomy may not ultimately undergo resection for various reasons. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, the next viable treatment option is often chemoembolization, but the safety of chemoembolization after PVE is not well documented. The present report describes the authors' experience with chemoembolization after PVE in three patients.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-related cirrhosis is commonly unrecognized and associated with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Determination of cirrhosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is important as it alters prognosis and management. We aimed to examine whether cirrhosis was diagnosed incidentally or intentionally in patients with NAFLD. We reviewed 100 patients with NAFLD cirrhosis to determine mode of cirrhosis diagnosis (incidental or by intent), severity of liver disease at diagnosis, diagnostician, and previous clinical imaging or laboratory evidence of unrecognized cirrhosis. The majority (66/100) of patients with NAFLD cirrhosis were diagnosed incidentally, with the majority of these (74%) diagnosed with NAFLD simultaneously. Those with incidental cirrhosis diagnoses had more deranged platelet and international normalized ratio levels (P < 0.05) and were more likely to have concomitant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (12% versus 0%, P < 0.05). Incidental cirrhosis was diagnosed following imaging (32%) or liver tests (26%) performed for reasons unrelated to liver disease, following unexpected endoscopic finding of varices (21%) or an unexpected surgical finding (14%). Diagnoses by intent were predominantly made by gastroenterologists/hepatologists, whereas general practitioners, surgeons, and physicians tended to diagnose cirrhosis incidentally (P < 0.001). The majority of patients diagnosed incidentally (n = 48/66, 73%) had previous thrombocytopenia, splenomegaly, or high noninvasive fibrosis scores. Following diagnosis, patients diagnosed incidentally were less likely to undergo HCC screening. Conclusion: The majority of patients with NAFLD cirrhosis are diagnosed incidentally. These patients are more likely to have advanced liver disease and HCC. Increased awareness of screening for cirrhosis is needed in patients with NAFLD. (Hepatology Communications 2017;1:53-60).

Volume regeneration of segments 2 and 3 after right portal vein embolization in patients undergoing two-stage hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of first-stage resection on volume regeneration of segments 2 and 3 (2 + 3) after right portal vein embolization (RPVE) in patients undergoing two-stage right hepatectomy has not been investigated. METHOD: Volume data for segments 2 + 3 were compared between 44 patients undergoing two-stage hepatectomy and 116 undergoing single-stage hepatectomy after RPVE. RESULTS: The degree of hypertrophy (difference between standardized volume of segments 2 + 3 before and after RPVE) and kinetic growth rate (degree of hypertrophy at initial volume assessment divided by the number of weeks elapsed after RPVE) were significantly lower in patients undergoing two-stage hepatectomy (median 8.6 vs 10.5% [p = 0.01] and 1.7 vs 2.4% [p < 0.01], respectively). Resection volume during first-stage resection was negatively correlated with standardized volume increase from the volume before first-stage resection (R (2) 0.546, p < 0.01). In patients undergoing two-stage hepatectomy after RPVE with segment 4 embolization, the degree of hypertrophy and kinetic growth rate were similar to those in patients undergoing single-stage hepatectomy (p = 0.17 and p = 0.08, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing two-stage hepatectomy, first-stage resection impairs the dynamics of volume regeneration of segments 2 + 3 after RPVE. When two-stage extended right hepatectomy is planned, additional embolization of segment 4 provides volume hypertrophy similar to that in patients undergoing single-stage hepatectomy.